Some of the elements are entirely individual; I am uniquely the eldest child of my parents, whose deaths happened at specific times of my life, and I have made personal choices about my career, lifestyle, political activities, and pleasures. In contrast, I share my identity as ‘an academic’ with tens of thousands of others, my generational identity with millions of post-World War II “baby boomers”, and my personal preferences with many people who have similar social and/or educational backgrounds. Like many UK citizens, I had grandparents who were immigrants, and grandparents who had long-standing links to a particular part of the UK - in my case, Yorkshire. I have significant interests and enthusiasms in common with fellow opera-goers, trade unionists and cheese-lovers.

Our editors write on what they think it means to be British

Have you ever met a Gulf brat? They are the British expatriates in the more liberal Arab nations, such as the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Bahrain and Oman. They are tanned, overdressed and speak in a strange accent which is equal parts Queen’s English and transatlantic twang. This tribe of shrieking, spoilt children is the product of an upbringing of housemaids, obscene expense accounts and an uneasy sense of where they come from. I was one of them.

Take a moment to prepare yourself for what you are about to read: the first, and likely only, article to be written by a Northern Irish-Bolivian hybrid in…well, possibly ever.

Do people describe themselves by their ethnic group? Possibly. It is quite feasible that some people feel comfortable in an easily understood category, and, at the same time, feel a sense of belonging with other members who identify themselves in the same way. The idea of nationality is also bound up with this. However, if you concur with the views of Benedict Anderson as set out in Imagined Communities, you will regard the nation as a culturally and socially constructed entity, rather than a fixed body.

Identity is an incredibly complex issue and therefore, if one is trying to start an argument with someone, a damn good place to start. One’s self image can be shaped by so many factors. Sexuality, gender, nationality, moral beliefs, religious inclinations and skin colour, amongst many other things, can all contribute to identity. An in-depth discussion about personal identity can equate to waving around a tub of pure nitro-glycerine in a fireworks factory. That is to say, expect a reaction. Understandably, people get passionate about how they view themselves as an individual, and as part of a group. Identity is an inseparable part of society, the incomprehensibly multifarious arena in which life must take place. Put simply, identity is bloody important.

The word “globalisation” summons a great deal of conflict. After asking people what the word meant to them, I was left with a large listing of emotive connotations describing unethical and greedy groups of collective power which exploit any means to maximise their own personal interests. This far from flattering catalogue was combined with fears of possible deterioration of our cultural heritage. I have personally found the so called “advancements in communication technology and the integration of international markets” a bit of a nuisance as my computer’s spell checker automatically changes the word globalisation to globalization each time I type it. Nevertheless, is this word simply misunderstood and could this liberalising phenomenon that is making our world smaller be the answer to issues such as world poverty and better futures for all?

Whenever globalisation is debated, the arguments generally fall (very) broadly into two categories: the Marxist and the liberal. The Marxist view is that globalisation is a form of exploitation, even colonisation. The liberal view is that the opening up of free markets allows progress in the poorest parts of the world: modern capitalism will lead to stronger economies, wealth generation, more equality and greater cooperation the world over. In this article, I will challenge both views.

That we live in the age of globalisation is announced so often that the news has become almost meaningless. Near endless column inches have been written trumpeting the arrival of our brave new “Global Village”. Writing in Newsweek last year the Prime Minister declared that “complaining about globalisation is as pointless as trying to turn back the tide.” So what is this Globalisation, so inevitable that it warrants comparison with an intractable natural phenomenon?